When Gov. Dannel P. Malloy suddenly announced last fall that the former Seaside property in Waterford would become a state park, not everyone was thrilled. The list of the unhappy includes:

• Waterford town officials, including First Selectman Daniel Steward, who were hoping for a $200 million development of upscale condominiums and an inn on the property that would have produced $3 million a year in tax revenue — and included a public park.

• Mark S. Steiner of Avon, who was to develop the property. Mr. Steiner has been involved with the project almost since the state shuttered it in 1997, has put $2 million into it, believes he did nothing to warrant losing his contract, and is likely to try to make his point in court.

• As The Courant's Josh Kovner recently reported, there is a third aggrieved party. The $8 million Mr. Steiner was going to pay for the property was to go toward housing for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The money could house several hundred people at much lower cost than the state pays to keep them in state-run group homes or regional centers.

The money would have been a godsend. The short- and long-term waiting list for such housing tops 2,000. The state has barely been able to keep up with emergency placements. "Gov. Malloy has essentially taken $8 million away from an agency [the Department of Developmental Services] that cannot meet the needs of the people it is supposed to serve," Leslie Simoes, executive director of The Arc Connecticut, the state's largest advocacy group for people with intellectual disabilities, told Mr. Kovner.

Why Not Both?

What is frustrating is that Seaside is a 34-acre site with 2,000 feet of coastline. Why can't it have some development and a state park?

Mr. Malloy is doing what his predecessor, Gov. M. Jodi Rell, tried to do seven years ago, when Mr. Steiner was poised to develop the site.

In late 2007, Mrs. Rell visited the property and, charmed by its beauty, decided to take it off the market and keep it for the public. But she had no plan for what to do with it, and the onset of the recession circumscribed opportunities.

She put it back on the market. Mr. Steiner again became the developer, and was battling for zoning approvals against some nearby property owners when Mr. Malloy pulled the plug, saying Mr. Steiner had had long enough to bring the project to fruition. The state would be taking a risk if that point has to be argued in court.

Mr. Malloy did have a plan for the property and has pursued it. Planning consultants came up with three options: a passive park for walking and picnicking at $3.2 million; an ecological park at $10.5 million to $24.1 million; and a destination park with hotel lodging at $46 million to $60 million.

Historic

In the first two options, the lovely but decaying historic buildings on the site, designed by the renowned architect Cass Gilbert as a sunny sanatorium for children with tuberculosis in the early 1930s, would be demolished. Mr. Steiner had promised to restore or, if they are too far gone, replicate the historic buildings. (The state's stewardship of its own historic buildings is beyond shameful.)

Even if bonding money can be found for a state park, the difficult budget environment of the next few years doesn't bode well for adequate operating funds.

A public-private partnership with development on part of the site and a park with public access to the waterfront, as town officials have urged, would make a lot of people happy.